Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Mackey asked the homeowners what type of communication they had with the building <br />department once the variance was granted in October. Mr. Muntaser explained that their <br />communication was limited to the contractor as they were the ones to apply for the permit to <br />install the fence. Mr. Muntaser continued to explain their hardships and thanked the board for the <br />first approval and explained they would be grateful if the board would grant this variance as <br />well. Mr. Mackey directed a question to Ms. Seeley about communication with the homeowners. <br />Ms. Seeley replied that the fence company was who the inspector communicated with due to <br />them being the ones to apply for the permit. She explained that there may have been some <br />confusion due to the lot size. and added that the inspectors do not go out for a post-hole <br />inspection relying on the site plan, and approved variance. Mr. Mackey asked what her opinion <br />was as to who was responsible for the error: to which she replied that it would be the contractors <br />since they were the ones to apply for the permit and communicate with the building department <br />and performed the installation. Ms. Patton asked if there were any communications from <br />neighbors: nothing was submitted in writing or communicated to the clerk. She asked if the <br />contractor offered to take financial responsibility for the error. to which Mr. Muntaser replied he <br />was not given a firm answer from the contractor. <br />Mr. Rahm moved to approve 26052: Fady Muntaser: 24974 Mitchell Drive. seconded by Mr. <br />Kovach. <br />During the discussion amon�o board members. they acknowledged the existing challenge with the <br />already installed fence and identified a communication gap between the fence builder and the <br />homeowner. The fact that the neighbors had no issues with the fence was noted. and it was <br />considered non -intrusive for the neighborhood. Mr. Rahm's statement and the observation that <br />the area did not pose a significant issue were highlighted. The uniqueness of the corner lot was <br />recognized, leading the members to lean towards favoring the request for a variance. The idea of <br />treating it as a new request was discussed. emphasizing that the fence's short length didn't <br />negatively impact the neighborhood. It was considered fitting within the neighborhood and not <br />posing hazards to traffic sight lines. <br />Motion Passed: -0 <br />26061; Robert Kess; 3397 Columbia Road <br />Representatives: Leslie Lavelle with Superior Quality Building and Remodeling in Berea, and <br />Robert Kess; 3397 Columbia Road. <br />Ms. Seeley introduced the case as a proposal that consisted of a detached garage. Property was <br />zoned B -One Family Residence. The following variances were requested: a six-foot variance for <br />distance to rear lot line. code permits 10 feet. applicant shows four feet: a one -foot variance for <br />distance to a dwelling on the same lot; code permits 15 feet. applicant shows 14 feet: a -foot <br />variance for distance to a dwelling on any adjacent lot: code permits 15 feet, applicant shows 10 <br />feet. <br />Ms. Lavelle's report outlined that the Kess's were planning to reconstruct their aging garage. <br />facing various issues. The cost to rebuild it in its current state was nearly equivalent to replacing <br />it. The proposed changes involved moving the garage four feet away from the back property line. <br />differing from its current one -foot position. The new garage configuration would be 24 feet wide <br />